1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
|
Return-Path: <pete@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6631C119E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:19:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail149075.authsmtp.net (outmail149075.authsmtp.net
[62.13.149.75])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A43C1BC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:19:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c232.authsmtp.com (mail-c232.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.232])
by punt20.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u14IJdJe023784;
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:19:39 GMT
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id u14IJZrW051717
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:19:36 GMT
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4A4E40012;
Thu, 4 Feb 2016 18:16:23 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 13:19:35 -0500
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160204181935.GA28036@muck>
References: <f225318eddd0aadc71861f988f2f4674@xbt.hk>
<CABsx9T2VoWm04i_vQv7u0vXM6hdMBM29bnMSuv8RmMFMGxOdpg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gKMricLos+KVdGMg"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T2VoWm04i_vQv7u0vXM6hdMBM29bnMSuv8RmMFMGxOdpg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Server-Quench: d8e813bc-cb6b-11e5-829e-00151795d556
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aQdMdgYUHlAWAgsB AmAbWlxeUVR7WmU7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUQRseGZr RHkeVxh1dgIIcHp5 bAg2ViVTXUcoJlsu
EEgGCGwHMGJ9YGIW BV1YdwJRcQRDe0tA b1YxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXCC1P Tg8KN1FaS0cXVhQd f3jL
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1037:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork bit BIP
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2016 18:19:42 -0000
--gKMricLos+KVdGMg
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 12:36:06PM -0500, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev wr=
ote:
> This BIP is unnecessary, in my opinion.
>=20
> I'm going to take issue with items (2) and (3) that are the motivation for
> this BIP:
>=20
> " 2. Full nodes and SPV nodes following original consensus rules may not =
be
> aware of the deployment of a hardfork. They may stick to an
> economic-minority fork and unknowingly accept devalued legacy tokens."
>=20
> If a hardfork is deployed by increasing the version number in blocks (as =
is
> done for soft forks), then there is no risk-- Full and SPV nodes should
> notice that they are seeing up-version blocks and warn the user that they
> are using obsolete software.
1) There is no way to guarantee that nodes will see those blocks, and
the current network behavior works against such guarantees even in the
non-adversarial case.
2) I know of no currently deployed SPV wallet software that warns users
about unknown block versions anyway.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
000000000000000008320874843f282f554aa2436290642fcfa81e5a01d78698
--gKMricLos+KVdGMg
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQGrBAEBCACVBQJWs5Y0XhSAAAAAABUAQGJsb2NraGFzaEBiaXRjb2luLm9yZzAw
MDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwODMyMDg3NDg0M2YyODJmNTU0YWEyNDM2MjkwNjQyZmNm
YTgxZTVhMDFkNzg2OTgvFIAAAAAAFQARcGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3JncGV0
ZUBwZXRlcnRvZC5vcmcACgkQwIXyHOf0udym+Af+IrcaCxFNrl6EX8m09CgaJsW8
izJ8FPljcSMfEy3p3wU7hyIqq7GXQaHVLZPn3kBGJZf07GZD3c9z05tjT3JOZciA
4N/bTAHh5qOA09qGpwZi99mzCsk9ICvXqP3AwFRQ1lI+B9bEivgupLl7lYi1j5Q7
1NCVEqX0xiPbcR/j0Jr4XV8WG0mMxkoxBNP3zr/yp3j2Dcf7JNzaXkVAXW9qpwB7
BqCrp9W0jD5Ij0znotxWzg1nIjBxU8GwpIm08CBCbFJazGV0yaZHw7jgQ81418dO
tRIYl+5H1NUcGT8mEc3eDAJP+/v/MBHmxl0da4zbeicATOJD1PPr4Hdtg7UJ/w==
=jyP4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--gKMricLos+KVdGMg--
|
